Seriously, "camouflaged" ?

If you do enter "Tulsi Gabbard" in google...
You (at least I get ) get:

Tulsi Gabbard polls
Tulsi Gabbard surfing
Tulsi Gabbard husband
Tulsi Gabbard debate
Tulsi Gabbard height
Tulsi Gabbard policies
Tulsi Gabbard platform
Tulsi Gabbard twitter
Tulsi Gabbard Assad

You understand he was joking right?

Yeah, the real search was "Gabbard patriotic undies."

No, no, that Buttigieg, obviously. How else was he able to raise $23mil ;).

Yeah the polls feel meaningless to me. I'm just trying to find the best candidate that matches my views.

I do get that this is just a game in a lot of ways and people follow it and discuss it as such (I don't mean that in a negative way, you can enjoy following the "Game" of the primary but still take your vote and what actions you can take seriously).

:banghead:

Yes, that is why I replied about the camouflage, I was jokingly replying.

But I thought what the heck, lets see what people actually were looking for.

:rolleyes:

In some sense meaningless, but not totally. Like for one if you are polling so low you are left out of the debates, you might as well drop out. For another, donors do pay attention to polls. Big jump in numbers can equal big bucks, big drops can equal disaster. Polls are not going to tell us who will win right now, but they do play a factor.

Yeah, I think the polls matter more within your own primary than the "against other party opponent". As GrantDawg said, they dictate funding and airtime.

I'm just a little discouraged that it seems like we are destined to have a democratic candidate who wants free health care, free college, higher taxes on anyone making over 100K and support this crazy Green New Deal. On the republican side, we will deal with a candidate who is pro-life, doesn't support gay marriage, is against any kind of reasonable high magazine/AR restriction and not remotely interested in balancing the budget or paying debt. I think I'm as disenfranchised a citizen as I have ever been between these two parties. My best hope is a democratic president who protects the social side with a republican congress that stops all the crazy fiscal policies.

:rolleyes:

Your pessimism about all of this inspires me. I desperately want all of those things, and believe we'd still be pretty far right of most of the countries I wish we would emulate even if we got all of that, and I have very little hope of any of it actually happening.

Anyone can run on this stuff but how much of it would ever happen without dominant control of both the house and senate, and the supreme court is stacked to make political judgments so even dominant control of two branches might not matter.


Also keep an eye on even places that are liberal echo chambers and you'll find a large number of people who are just as scared of Bernie and Warren as the right is. I'm heavily in on the Warren train right now and fully expect to be disappointed as the most moderate candidate of all ends up winning.

The best thing for all of us would be an overhaul of the voting system to some sort of ranked choice system that seems multiple parties thrive in other countries. Trump and Jeb Bush shouldn't be in the same party, they are very different flavors of right wing. Bernie and Beto shouldn't be in the same party. You should be able to vote for someone on the right who isn't trump and who more matches your values. Biden fans should be able to vote for him based on their ideals and not have to worry about "settling" for Bernie because of our two party system. I should be able to vote for Bernie without thinking "shit i'm gonna have to hold my nose and vote Biden aren't I?"

Sadly it'll probably take something close to revolution to fix this, and we don't have that in us.

Under no plan is health care going to be "free." Either we pay for it privately, we pay for it through our employer and lower wages, or we pay it through taxes. So it's a question of how we pay for it, how much do we pay for it, and who gets covered.

I have to admit that some of the arguments against a government-managed system sound like a case where folks are saying "I don't believe everyone deserves to be covered."

I'm much more Dem than I used to be because the alternative has gotten much, much worse. And I actually think the crop of 2020 Dem candidates is much more impressive than say, the group in 2004. They're all further to the left than me on many issues, but, that has little impact on what America will actually look like if any of them are elected.

My perfect candidate doesn't exist, I'm way too far left and right on different issues, but, the Dems will give us a smart progressive grown-up. I'll always be a conservative at heart and definitely understand how the Dem rhetoric rubs people the wrong way, but, I can't have anything to do with this Republican party. And there's no third-party nominee more qualified than the Dem nominee will be.

I'm kind of surprised there's not more of me. Regular, moderate, conservative on some things people who are disgusted by Trump and the Republicans. I will only vote for a Republican going forward in a state election where the Republican candidate is the truly the most qualified (which happens a lot in red states). I think our AG and Governor do a great job.

You're not alone in this. Pretty much describes me as well. I too have wondered why there aren't more of us. Are we just not speaking out? It feels like the fiscal (as opposed to social) moderate conservative has disappeared, whoch other GOP members have either fallen into a Trumpist subset or the old ultra conservative Christian side.

Where did you see the 100k figure.


The free tuition plan would be paid for through a "speculation tax"
I can not see this really harming anyone but the computer trades.

High frequency micro trading should be illegal, and a small tax won't stop what is just skimming from legitimate trades.

Just one more way the general public is separated from money by the elites.

Fuck the poor! - YouTube

Emphasis mine. There are some moderate Republicans who are speaking out, but readily dismissed (such as George Will, David Brooks, and to an extent, Ross Douthat).

And then there is the other phenomenon. My wife's parents are big Trumpers. They have the hats, bumper stickers (along with other bumper stickers about "libtards" - regardless of the fact that both of their daughters are very liberal), etc. My wife recently told me that when Trump was running, they were adamant that they weren't going to vote for him. They thought he was abhorrent. Now, they weren't as moderate as you and molson. They were definitely far more conservative, but made a big show about they weren't voting for him. Then they said, well because of Hillary, we had to vote for him, but we didn't like it. And now they've gone fullbore supporters. And part of it is probably because "he makes liberals mad" and part of it is that it speaks to things they believe but never really wanted to speak openly (they have quite a racist streak - thankfully they stopped posting anti-Muslims shit on Facebook after meeting my family and really liking them - yes Muslim can be humans too).

Anyways, that being said, I think a lot of moderate Republicans just went in too deep. Trump voters became like old people - they aren't that much of the electorate, but you know they'll vote and they are loud about what they don't like, so they are captive to them.

If only a few of the moderate Republicans had the strength of their convinctions (we'd always joke that Jeff Flake would be very anti-Trump in rhetoric and then vote with him anyways), maybe we'd see more.

I thought for a bit that with 2016, TRUE moderate Republicans were going to start having to become Democrats. Because the current Republican party just went deep into the tank for Trumpism. I know there is an idea some moderate Republicans have that after Trump is gone, they can come back and resurrect the party into something they'd rather see, but I think that is gone.

This has been my argument for years. Plenty of GOP electeds weren't personally racist, but they were willing to do what they needed to do to make sure the racists voted for them. Every time they'd examine what needed to be done to expand the party enough of them would push back so that the goal was to motivate more white voters. Eventually enough of them became comfortable limiting voting access. Eventually enough of them became comfortable attacking religious minorities. Eventually enough of them became comfortable with cruelty towards immigrants.

Every step of the way it was justified by saying the Dems made us go there, band so few people objected that now the GOP is a White Nationalist party with no obvious path towards a more inclusive party.

So, based on the bolded part, do you really think if Bernie enacted universal health care tomorrow and employers no longer paid for it - that we would all get a raise in our wages? :lol: That's pretty funny. No, workers just would lose the employer subsidized portion and then have to pay higher taxes for worse coverage.

I don't see the need to throw away a system that works for a vast majority of workers in this country. I'm fine setting up a plan to cover those people who make less than a certain amount (say 60K) and have a subsidized scale moving up to help people making under 100K cover their premiums. But leave employer subsidized heath care the way it is. The focus should be on finding better ways to subsidize coverage for those not currently covered - not throw the baby out with the bath water and setup a system that gives a majority of this country worse coverage at a higher price to them.



It's his raising of marginal rates and upping the payroll tax on people who make between 75 and 120K. These people already pay 40% wage tax, Sanders would up that to almost 50%.

Employer subsidized health care is a disaster. Just about every economist agrees on this point (whether left or right). It hides the true cost of health care from most people for one.

Now, I do get like $150 a month taken out of my paycheck for health care. I don't know if my employer (the US Government) would give that back to me. I suspect a number of employers would give some of that back (because it was a garnishment based on a choice for insurance made above an employement contract signed). The lower wage jobs likely would not.

Anyways, I know that people irrationally like their private insurance (probably because there is a fear of the unknown), so I'd like to see a public option in place first and a gradual move away from private employer insurance.


So the stuff below $250k is just a repeal of the Trump tax cuts, IIRC.

My parents (mostly my mom) are the same way. Were big Bush and then Kasich supporters and were repulsed by Trump. They claim to have both voted for Gary Johnson (I question my mom didn't vote for Trump) but now my mom is a big facebook pro-Trump meme poster.

My conclusion is a lot different than yours though. The hypocrisy of two party politics can be found on any issue. (i.e. "Border cages" during Obama administration, Betsy Ross flag right behind Obama at his inauguration, Hillary Clinton laughing with Trump in pictures...) The liberal side isn't really winning over anyone by just being anti-Trump all of the time when what they complain about is easy documented in pictures and new reports from when they were firmly in power. I'm scared it's just going to reelect him for another 4 years to talk about how bad he is about stuff that is easily traced back to them. Doesn't always have to be racism...

EDIT: And Trump is awful don't get me wrong. Needs to be removed from office in 2020.

Here's a few articles on employer subsidized health care:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/07/h...deduction.html


https://niskanencenter.org/blog/what...lth-insurance/

Could you share which article that came from?

Tax rates definitely have to go up in any medicare for all plan. I guess I need to see the source for myself to believe that Bernie's tax plan raises income tax on the $75k-$118k dramatically and then drops it significantly for the $118k-$230k portion of one's income.


One of the biggest knocks against Sanders is that he has often had a lot of plans that are simply not fleshed out enough to explain how they'll be paid for. I know he's starting to nail some of that down, but that doesn't pass the immediate smell test.


That said, I make low 6 figures. I expect to pay more in taxes for medicare for all. I expect I probably lose a little money in doing so. If we get our 70% marginal rate on $10 million plus in income, I'll happily do my part as someone who lives in complete comfort and privilege by paying more than i do now to try to actually take care the huge range of people who make too much for medicaid, but who cannot afford healthcare, for which a single medical emergency either results in death or crippling lifelong debt.

dola, i'll leave my comments out there for the world but ISiddiqui's note that these rates are just a repeal of the trump tax plan puts it in a better light, the weird differences are in payroll taxes, is that correct? I still don't quite understand it though.

The real problem in the health care system is rhe excessive bloat worked into the system by every partner in it, including hospitals/doctors, health insurers and Big Pharma. They are all complicit in keeping the costs of health care higher than they should be so that they can pass those costs on to consumers while raking in profits.

Until we fix that, no matter what healthcare delivery and payment system we decide on will be a mere bandaid.

I'm not an economist, so please someone explain this to me:

"But economists on the left and the right argue that to really rein in health costs, Congress should scale back or eliminate the tax exclusion on what employers pay toward employees’ health insurance premiums."

How does increasing taxes on health insurance premiums reduce overall healthcare costs?

This is true but Medicare by its sheer size and influence forces many of those costs down if you want to work with medicare and accept medicare patients. I believe a lot of that naturally goes away in a single payer system.

I'm not going to pretend I know enough to make a call one way or the other, but from what I have read, the problem isn't economics related, and won't be solved by market forces or changing tax subsidies or expanding Medicaid (which is just government payment into that same system). It's basically collusion amongst those three industries (the healthcare system, health insurers and Big Pharma) to keep costs intentionally high AND to hide actual costs from the public, so the public can't make reasoned choices on the best places to spend their healthcare budgets. The government could step in to change this, of course, but the above industries have well-funded lobbies and make sure the politicians are paid off to go after other issues and let this one roll on.

A few ways and it depends on what you'll replace it with. Right leaning economists would argue that employer sponsored insurance encourages workers to buy the most expensive insurance coverage and then use it as often as they can (and not caring about the medical providers they use). And they would say that knowledge of what health care costs would have people making more rational decisions on that care as it would impact them more. I think they'd also argue that providers would get more serious about reducing prices because now they know that employer sponsored insurance will pay just about whatever they bill if a patient has coverage.

Left leaning economists would argue than in state run health care systems, the government can negotiate lower prices (as is done in other countries - you'll note that American health care spending per capita is far higher than in other first world countries). The argument can also be as Chief Rum pointed out, the excessive bloat and overhead increase costs exponentially as well.

Your examples are ridiculous. WTF does the Betsy Ross flag being flown at Obama's inauguration prove? Clinton laughing in pictures with Trump? So what?

I'm surprised that Vox ran a chart like that. Marginal tax rates don't mean much, what matters is effective tax rates, what people actually pay. Nobody, except perhaps the people at the bottom, is paying those percentages currently, nor would they pay the full Sanders percentages.

Always nice to see you too. They are social media (and often mainstream media) manufactured "controversies" that embolden people like my parents that even though they don't like Trump (as I said in my original post... not sure my mom doesn't actually like him) the alternative are just hypocrites.

For example: The border crisis that almost every Democratic politician is on record at some point prior making statements similar to Trump's policy, the cages were around prior to Trump. Doesn't mean these aren't real issues but to blame Trump when quickly pointed out as a hypocrite just makes my parents feel like they are correct.

Every day there is some new sign that Trump's America has sent us to the edge of 1930's Germany. (people wearing a MAGA hat, the Betsy Ross flag, etc)

I've said before I don't agree with my parents but disagree with you that they have no point whatsoever.

Here's what the tax code would look like if Bernie Sanders got everything he wanted - Vox

The increase is basically a sort of "payroll tax" to help pay for universal health care.

It's not a disaster, it just helps offset the cost to the employee by having their company shoulder a chunk of it (and get a write off in the process). If we went to a single payer plan tomorrow, it going to cost nearly the same - it's just a matter of who pays most of the bill. Let's look at an example - say a person makes 100K for simplicity. Their taxes would go up around $8,000 a year under Bernie, but they would get their $150 a paycheck in health care premiums back. So, they would get $4,000 back, but pay $8,000 in taxes and end up with worse coverage. Plus, that $150 is currently tax free, so they would actually get less back since their AGI would go up by that $4,000 they get back by not paying premiums. Currently, employers pay a big portion of a person's medical premiums because it is a write off for them (they cover about 70% at our company). You can see that by looking at the explanation of benefits from your company each year.

I don't understand how the left gets so made at corporations for not paying enough, yet wants to have them stop paying one of the major advantages they give their employees (paying a large portion of their health care cost). It's not like everyone is going to get a 10% raise if employers stop paying for their health care - they employee will just have to pay 100% out of their pocket then (instead of the 30-50% they pay now). The companies will just be off the hook and make slightly more money (I say slightly because covering health care expenses is a form of a write off for them right now - so they wouldn't get all that money back).

I think that is starting to change. People are leaving PPO/HMO for HSA "high deductible" coverage in droves right now. We've had over 40% switch in the last two years and it makes a lot more sense to just put your $300-$400 a month in premiums into your HSA account instead and pay cash until you hit your deductible (ours is around $3,000). These HSA plans also do a pretty good job of curtailing excessive visits. When a doc visit costs $90 instead of a $30 copay, people aren't as excited to use it. These plans are the future, IMO.

As to the broader question, it really doesn't impact the cost whether the government or private companies setup the plans. The government does a ton of health care coverage for older people (Medicare) and lower income (called Access here in Arizona). Costs are still equally high for services geared towards those plans. If the US goes to a single payer system, many middle-upper class families and higher will purchase a supplemental plan and we will be in a similar position to where we are now from a health care cost standpoint (the supplemental plans will get overcharged while the rank and file still pay high costs on the government plan). The only difference is people will now foot the entire bill (instead of the employer paying for 50-70% like they do now).

I just don't see how this is a good idea. We have a factory worker that makes $75K a year and has our HSA plan ($3000 deductible) that doesn't have a monthly premium (since it is a high deductible). If he puts his normal $300 a month in premiums into the HSA, he would have $3,600 (tax free) in his HSA to cover the full deductible and some extra coinsurance costs after. Chance are he would roll a bunch of that $3,600 over into next year and have a savings account for health expenses. Now, let's say Bernie is president and that plan is no longer available. The US plan would have a higher deductible and not as good coinsurance (ours is 90%). He would be paying $5,000 - $6,000 more in taxes for a worse plan. So, then his option would be to either put more in his HSA (to cover the higher costs) or buy a supplemental policy that makes up the coverage gaps (and costs yet more money). Chances are that person would be out $7,000-$9,000 in real money to be part of this new system where he gets worse health coverage.

It is just amazing to me that people think getting rid of employee subsidized health care is going to be good for most people. Its like saying an employer pays 50% of all rent expenses for 10,000 employees in a small town and gets a tax write-off from the local government for doing that. So, a family in one of these employer subsidized rent control apartments is paying $1,500 a month for a place that should cost $3,000. The government then decides to ban the employer from subsidizing apartments in this city (and takes back the write-off) and forces this family to either live in much worse place for their $1,500 or pay the going rate of $3K for that place. While the majority of this town would face a massive increase in expenses, the government thinks that years down the road the rent will decrease in this city to where small percentage of people not employed by this company would be able to afford a better place. That is basically the argument to get rid of employer subsidized health care. Soak all people with employer covered health plans for the next 5-10 years on a hope (that has never happened with Medicare for seniors, FYI) that costs will eventually decrease.

I've never figured out how a healthcare program that costs more per capita than any other system in the world, but actually covers less people than the vast majority of them is a "good" system from a conservative's perspective.

Worse coverage? Wha? Every single payer program I've seen has far better coverage than American private insurance. Why do you think this groundswell for Medicare for All has been coming from? People in other countries are flabbergasted by the level of our cost sharing (mainly deductible amounts, which don't really exist in single payer systems - have you considered those costs in your analysis?).

I'm not entirely sure why you come to the conclusion that single payer health system is just going to be like the employer sponsored health system but with the government instead of insurance companies.

People will of course be paying more, but with better health coverage and more equitable health care coverage. And the country will be paying less overall as overhead costs decreases substantially, and the government can negotiate services as a whole.

Not to mention that a lot of times private insurance freezes you to your job (which creates a massive inefficiency to the job market).

It much easier to have a great health care system when your country's population is 37 million (Canada) or 17 million (Netherlands). The US has a population of 329 million. The only real comparable countries are China and India. The US ranks 37th in WHO ratings, while China (144) and India (112) are both sub 100. It is nearly impossible to have high health care quality with 300 million people. Yet, the US does. It is very expensive because of our population, lifestyle (fast food and little exercise) and expectation of services/coverage. No system will solve those issues. A single payer just increases the coverage total by a small amount while increasing the cost to individuals and decreasing the quality of coverage. To me, a smarter way would be to focus on find a more affordable way to cover the 12% of uninsured people - not drastically increase the cost (and decrease service) for the 88% currently covered.

Most of them don't think its good, and a lot of the growth in the support for single player has been right-leaning people just giving up and bowing to the perceived need for that. But more importantly, there's still a lot of people who think that it's very possible for a bad system to be made worse, who don't want to give up the freedom that more government control mandates, and who generally don't trust the government in general.

The idea that health insurance costs would double and coverage would be significantly worse is nuts. It's roughly similar to arguing that healthcare under Bernie would be literally free.

We pay significantly more for drugs, hospital visits, procedures. surgeries, etc. How does that have anything to do with population size?

But it's not apples to apples with a country that has 10% of your population (Canada). There is no magic bullet to decrease costs when you have a massive population of unhealthy people who eat fast food everyday and expect a high level of service. It's just whether you prefer that employers subsidize it or individual shoulder all the costs themselves via taxes.

Again, you are handing most workers a $4-$7K bill each year for a lower level of coverage with the "hope" of costs to eventually decrease.

70% of private employers offer subsidized health care. I don't think a person at a company stays there because all the similar jobs out there don't have private health insurance.

The costs to the employee would double, there is a distinction there. Currently, the employer pays between 50 and 70% of the cost of the health care plan. If that goes away, the employee is faced with 100% of the cost (either through taxes or premiums).

It's a factor - more people mean more sick people and more diverse set of serious illnesses. We also have one of the worst lifestyles when it comes to health. So more people living a worse lifestyle = higher cost. We also foot the bill for a big chunk of research and innovation. Finally, we have a higher expectation of service than most Canadian and European counterparts. We wait maybe 2-3 weeks for most surgeries - those waits in Canada or the UK are closer to 12 weeks and 20 weeks in places like Norway and Finland.

But if most of them don't think its good, why aren't alternative plans a part of Republican policy debates or legislative pushes? Healthcare only seems to come up with Republicans when they're opposing change. Which indicates support for the status quo.

Because they don't typically have a better idea they can get behind. They don't like the ACA and like the old way better than that, but they don't have a coherent idea on how to do better. The whole country doesn't really. All the polling the last several years that I've seen is that there is a consensus for several things:

** reduced cost,
** keep stuff like portability and pre-existing conditions
** cover as many people as possible, preferably all of the uninsured
** retain freedom of choice within the system
** modest increase in taxes at most, preferably no increase
** continued high investment in new research etc., to Arles point

The problem of course is that you can't do all of those things at once, and people aren't generally willing to give on any of it, so while public opinion is trending towards single-payer there's not strong agreement on any remotely realistic option. It wasn't until a couple years ago that we got to the point where there was a clear majority in favor of single-payer - a decade ago that idea was significantly underwater. And even within that agreement, once you get into the details the consensus fractures badly.

While a registered democrat, I consider myself more conservative when it comes to health care and economic policy. instead of a single payer, here's what I would try to do:

1. Fully or partially subsidize health care plans for people making under a certain amount (say $100K) who don't have employer provided health care. Maybe under 50K it is 100%, 75% under 75K and 50% under 100K. The government would just give them a tax credit that could be used for their premium costs per year (basically act like the employer).

2. Setup better exchanges for small business owners with some % subsidies for premiums there as well.

If you focus on getting coverage for people who don't have it, then you can look at finding ways to reduce the cost in certain areas. The prescription drug thing is a tough one. Currently the US pays 3-times more for the same drug in Europe, but that extra money helps fund research and innovation. There could be a massive hit to R&D if we capped prices like Europe - but I'm certainly open to ideas here.

I'm also not sure we can do a ton with overall cost given the number of unhealthy people/lifestyles we have and our expectation of service. If we were willing to wait 3-5 months more for most elective surgeries, that might help. If we lost a lot of choice for specialists/doctors (like in other countries), that may help too. I'm just not sure this country has the stomach for those type of changes.

If I waved a magic wand and we had the health care system in Canada here tomorrow - there would be riots in the streets when people saw their tax bill, how long they had to wait for surgeries/care and how restricted the list of doctors/specialists would be.

1-Government needs to stop living in 1952 and legalize marijuana, two immediate needs for the tax revenue, healthcare and education. It also opens up research, allows MD's to prescribe and impacts the opioid crisis. The biggest obstacle here are obviously big pharm and middle aged conservatives who still think Harry J. Anslinger is a saint.

2-This is the big thing. Meritus the Arizona exchange was an absolute disaster and was a convoluted mess run by people better suited to selling used cars. They created plans to try and appeal to everyone, including things that officers of the company wanted covered for themselves, which made them almost impossible to administer effectively.

Training was sub-par, cost containment was nearly non-existent, and since they were playing with house money they had no immediate sense of urgency to stop hemorrhaging funds. The federal government gave them far too much leeway and should have mandated a very select group of plan tiers. Meritus put bids out to TPA's with the understanding they would offer a dozen plan options. That number increased to over 90 when time came for implementation and it was a shit show in terms of configuration. To go down this route again there needs to be a standard template, which ideally should follow CMS guidelines like Medicare and offer PPO, HMO and Select options with no more than 3-4 plans in each tier.

I simply don't get this worse coverage thing and that's the major stumbling block. I think single payer is vastly improved coverage and its no contest. That's why people are willing to pay more in taxes. Detectables would be essentially eliminated. You wouldn't have hidden payments (a very American issue right now as is this new thing of "True Emergency" initiated by insurance companies). People daily get screwed by their health insurance, who will deny valid claims and try to assign cost sharing on things they shouldn't until the government cites them for it (Investigating and citing health insurance companies is part of my job, mind). That's not even getting into self funded Heath plans that run out of money, leaving participants on the hook for procedures they thought was covered. Our system, for people that HAVE insurance, is a complete mess. The reason people are for single payer is because it's better coverage. And if you disagree on that that we simply don't have enough basic agreement to have a conversation about this.

And its fascinating to me that you have never ran into someone who turned down a job they liked better because of health care benefits. 70% of employers offering health care doesn't mean it's all the same quality.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, I don't understand how folks think needlessly involving a third-party-insurance company (and all their overhead) in their healthcare somehow results in cheaper costs (and/or better care) for them.

Thanks for the link, Arles, I set it aside to read a bit later.

Catching up on the rest of the conversation, we are now somehow arguing about the upper middle class entirely.


People who can afford either a PPO or an HDHP/HSA plan and who are the least impacted by anything we're talking about here maybe leaving PPO's for High Deductible plans in droves. Someone who has been a teacher for 10 years and is now finally making $45,000 is probably not doing that.

The median individual annual income in the US is $33,517. Many of these are married and the median household income is higher near $70,000. But that means that half of the households in the country are under that and now we're talking about larger families.

So 50% of the employed adults in the US make less than $33,500 a year. Those people are not setting aside $1500 spare income into an HSA and paying out of pocket for their first $1500 in medical costs before they can even get that benefit. I have no idea how easily a family of 4 making $50,000 or even $60,000 has the disposable income needed for this, especially given that a family deductible is more likely to be double-triple the individual one.

More middle class and upper middle class people moving to HSA's will raise the costs of PPO plans, as the risk is spread amongst fewer and fewer people.

In 2017, 27.4 million Americans still did not have healthcare coverage. This is the crux of the healthcare problem and HSA's will never help them, and in fact will hurt them as it makes the entry into any sort of HMO plan more expensive as less people use them.

That lower income group that will never be able to afford an HSA dis-proportionally impacts minorities. The bottom 20% of earners in the nation contains far fewer white families than average, and far, far more hispanic/latino and black families than their average representation.


The status quo is full of policies that hurt minorities, and further expand the unfathomable wage gap in this nation.


Like some others who have straight up said "the trump tax plan helped me so i'm good" - you don't need help. You are incredibly lucky to be in a position where you will be fine no matter what happens. Obviously you're free to vote in your own interests and to rally support for policies that help you. But once you're over $75,000 in income or so, virtually every policy that helps you hurts is going to hurt tens of millions of individuals below you, disproportionally black and hispanic indviduals.


I was going to respond to some other stuff but this is long enough :)

The Ross flag is a stupid "controversy" though. Nike consulted with one of their spokespeople, who didn't think it was a great idea, and they pulled the plug. And THEN it was an issue. For people like your parents. How many of those complaining about this were in the market for Betsy Ross Nikes, exactly? Or had any merchandise at all with the Betsy Ross flag on it? The only reason it's a "controversy" is because they chose to bitch about it.

I'm starting to think some white people just don't like the fact that a black man's opinion may hold more sway than theirs.

Shouldn't it also mean more health care professionals, more facilities, greater production capabilities/cheaper cost per production, more research, etc? Is economy of scale not a thing?

You're arguing that we consume more healthcare, but that doesn't explain why individual procedures cost so much more than in other developed countries. Why does an MRI cost so much more? Why does a dose of insulin cost so much more?

From CNBC:


and

So, part of the answer to our high health care costs are nurses and doctors need big pay cuts? I just don’t understand how a single payer system cuts costs enough to justify the bigger expense? Here are some of the reasons for our high heath care costs:
1. High Salaries for nurses and doctors.
2. Expectation of quick surgeries/low wait times.
3. We want the ability to pick our doctors and specialists.
4. We have a very large number of people to cover.
5. We have an unhealthy lifestyle with fast food and little exercise.
6. The US foots the bill for much of the drug R&D costs.

I don’t see a single payer system addressing any of these reasons.

I don't think nurses or most regular doctors are overpaid. Some specialists are paid highly, but I assume they are good and/or pay super high insurance premiums.

You're also missing the #1 reason I hate our current health care system - wayyyy too many people in beauracratic positions who add costs, time and paperwork but no value. Can a "single payer" government run system actually streamline that beauracratic nightmare? Doubtful, but at least it'd be easier to pinpoint where the wasteful excess is.
I wouldn't buy the shoes & it wouldn't have crossed my radar if ESPN or Twitter didn't push it to me, but yes it bothers me on multiple accounts. Idk if Nike pulled it because they felt white power groups had co-opted it or because they worried minorities would associate a colonial American flag with slavery, but either way it's dumb. If it's the former I agree sometimes symbols get co-opted & lost (sorry Hindi people, you're not getting the swastika back), but the Betsy Ross isn't that and I think we should push back (just like white power groups don't get to claim white Polo's & khaki shorts or Macklemore haircuts... Though I'd give them the Macklemore haircuts). If it's the latter it's back to the Founding Fathers esque bullshit where people want to hold historical figures to the same standard we'd hold people today. I'm fine using something like this as a teaching moment to educate people on how far we've come, but only to the lunatic left fringe that got Trump elected is a Colonial flag a "pro-slavery" flag.

Medicare is very efficiently run compared to most healthcare payers. I actually have a lot of optimism about this - if were ever to get passed.

Sorry to tell you this but for a lot of people of color, white Polos and khakis (esp with New Balances) and Macklemore haircuts are going to make people think you are a white supremacist. Like there is a reason white power groups latched onto the Betsy Ross flag - no one else was using it and it adhered to their ideas about a white purity state. It's hard to jump back in now and say, hey, I know we weren't using it (for like decades), but it isn't yours. The attachment has already taken some root.


Or rather it's the un-deification of the Founding Fathers. I have long thought that the US eschews monarchy, because we've put the Founding Fathers in God-like roles already. In some respects they are our own Greek Gods with their mythical stories. Popping that bubble is long overdue, IMO. It's more unveiling the Founders and realizing that their values may not be exactly our values 200 years+ later and that's ok. People get angry and say the Founders had good as well as the bad, but they also get upset when you try to point out the bad and indicate that maybe that is a reason not to put them on the uncritical podiums they've been on for so long.

It's definitely a thing in the vocal Twitter fringes, but I don't believe a lot of people in the real world think that. But people were always using it in my area (a mile from the North Bridge), and colonial American wasn't a white purity state anyways, so why should we cast it aside if idiots are misappropriating it?

I don't think they've been on an uncritical podium in the last 20 years, and I think all us smart people can look at them as a whole & acknowledge their faults while still appreciating what they did at the time. Maybe it's due to growing up in a town that actually cares about colonial history, but outside of George Washington I think everyone readily acknowledges their faults.

As a very white white guy can I get clarification on which New Balance models I'm allowed to wear.

It addresses those issues indirectly by completely eliminating the costs for insurance salesmen, insurance benefit reviewers, insurance billers, insurance collectors, insurance IT departments, insurance business analysts, insurance software developers, insurance software testers, insurance personnel managers, insurance HR, insurance marketers, insurance licensing, insurance underwriters, insurance claims adjusters, insurance advisers, insurance telemarketers, insurance customer support, insurance advertisers, insurance risk managers, insurance graphic designers, insurance copywriters, insurance mail campaigns etc., before we even begin to consider any of the finer issues.

Eh, it just strikes me as funny though that the ire isn't at the "white power groups." It's at the "lunatic left fringe." Folks aren't angry that a symbol may have been co-opted (and most of the time, they will deny that), they're angry at someone pointing out that it may have been co-opted. Tell me how much vitriol goes towards the Proud Boys vs Kaepernick.

I agree and disagree. I think that the Sanders and company plan may be too extreme (government mandated single payer), but I think the best moderate plans allow anyone to join medicare. Even in countries that provide free healthcare, people still have private insurance. A public option will force private companies to compete with better coverage at more affordable rates. The other big necessity is allowing medicare to negotiate the cost of medicine. The bloat in our system is the runway cost drugs hand in hand with the huge profits being sucked out of the system by insurers. Cutting those cost substantially would make a big dent in the problems in the system.

I found this quote on CNN and found it interesting:


"The Democratic victory in 2018 was the result of center-left Democrats winning against more left-wing opponents in primaries. According to the Third Way think tank, 33 of the 40 Democrats who won in swing districts defeated someone on their left on primary day"



Is it possible the far left is getting way to much attention/praise for the victory in 2018, and that the lesson we should actually take from the mid-terms is if democrats focus on issues that matter to the people without going to the grand extremes of the far left, they can win?

Somewhere in the middle. The more moderates candidates may have won more, but the far left candidates have shifted policy talk and brought their ideas into the mainstream. Bernie is the classic example.

Isn't this basically what the ACA was? I don't have a problem with a government run "safety net" insurance group for lower income or people without coverage (basically expand medicare). I just want to make sure it doesn't cause employers to stop covering their employees. Prescription drug cost is a big issue, but you don't need a government plan to cap prices (if that's the solution). The government currently does this for industries like energy that have private companies involved. Congress could vote to cap drug prices (or have them match Europe prices) tomorrow without a single payer. They just wouldn't do that because of the drug companies put so much money into their candidacy.

I'd have to look at the methodology, but Third Way definitely has an ideological reason to paint a picture of centrists winning.

No, it wasn't. The ADA had the significant problem that the insurance companies had all the power. That is why there is run-away costs and very limited coverage options. If the private companies had to actually compete against a true public option, things would have to change. On the prescription side, allowing medicare to to negotiate prices would drive prices down without having to have artificial caps. I think both of those hand in hand will do more than again trying to negotiate with the insurance companies that only had sabotaging the ADA in mind from the very beginning.

I am sure, but then doesn't everybody?

I think people forget that the ACA initially HAD a public option as part of it's plan. However, it was impossible to get 60 votes in the Senate for it (even though there were 60 Democrats in the Senate, some of them were not sold on the public option), so it had to be removed from the final bill.

And on prescription drugs, I think the Medicare Part D law passed during the Bush Administration forbade the government from using it's negotiation power to drive drug prices down for Medicare recipients.

We have a drop out from the Democratic primaries. Eric Swalwell drops out and now faces a challenger to his left for his Congressional seat in CA. I liked him, but could never get any momentum building up.

Warren appears to have outraised Sanders in 2Q:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/eliza...ushpmg00000003

So far Buttigieg and Biden are the only ones who have raised more (but all have not revealed their amounts)

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

That is really impressive for Buttigieg....he led the way and outraised even Biden by a good amount.

I'm not sure how this happened but he is a contender.

Gay people have a ton of expendable income.

We do? :D

The lineups for the next debate has been announced:

Warren and Sanders will join Delaney, Hickenlooper, Ryan, Bullock, Williamson, Klobuchar, O'Rourke and Buttigieg on July 30.

Harris and Biden will join Gillibrand, Gabbard, Bennet, Blasio, Inslee, Booker, Yang and Castro on July 31.

If I learned anything from the last debates it's that 10 candidates is way too many for a single night.

They should stick all of them on a stage for 2 nights. Let them sweat. Who can handle the pressure.

I'd like to see some kind of talent competition.

No swimsuits though.

How bout patriotic underwear?

Since Warren and Sanders remain my two top candidates (with a fairly heavy lean to Warren at the moment), I'm really looking forward to hearing them speak on the same issues/questions side by side.

I know most of it will be more grandstanding and stuff, and I know that does matter here, but I'm hoping to also get a little policy related info out of them.

Actually, I think it could prove functionally useful to have Warren and Sanders getting all the oxygen on the first night. Those two are, you might argue, playing in from the same region, so in the interests of focus, this debate could offer some opportunity for consolidation. And, there's a chance that the lack of electricity from anyone else on that stage (seems likely) spells the end for all of them. If you want money on one player there to emerge in a Tulsi-like way, I'd put my bet on Inslee, but I wouldn't expect more than a bit of googling and a sliver of stupid money.

Night 2 ought to be a free-for-all, and the pairing of Biden and Harris reeks of a frozen envelope, even without the shocking odds against it happening randomly.

Booker would seem to be the big unknown for night two. This may be his last chance to move into the top tier. Does he go after Biden? Does he go after Harris? Does he accept that it's all but over and play for a VP spot?

He goes after Biden, right? That's the play there. Actually, just pick up the "pass the torch" idea. Set aside he's a minority... what he is, is a non-socialist man. There's a lane for one of those, and Biden is the bigger half of his problem for that lane into the final three or four.

I'd think the best play for anybody outside of those 'big 4' would be to hold a press conference, call the debates an obvious circus that you're not going to attend, detail your platform and drop the microphone.

That's what I would expect, and that could work out well for Harris. I don't think Booker has any chance, so in terms of his candidacy I don't think it matters, but he can shift things towards Harris or Biden.

That's where I think there's a small chance that he sees a possible VP slot with Biden and perhaps a solo run in 2024 and decides to lighten up on Biden so as to not blow that chance. Having a guy that likely won't run for a second term complicates things for potential VPs.

Did I miss something here (possibly obvious sarcasm!)... was Biden & Harris getting drawn together anything other than a 50/50 chance? Sorry I didn't watch the DNC draft lottery :/
How would that help raise their profile for future elections? At least 10/20 could do it and receive zero press coverage.

I don't want to say he shouldn't attack Biden, because clearly there is still meat on that bone & it's the reason Harris was the one who gained traction in the first round (unless you count people who suddenly realized Tulsi Gabbard is pretty on the TV), but I think there's also a lane (for him) to point out that Harris might check boxes as a black woman, but she's really not a super liberal candidate on the issues. Having both Warren & Sanders on the other side could help in that sense.

He seems committed to positivity though, so good luck.

I'll say again that I hate so much how big this crowd is. It was terrible that we only had 3 candidates last time, but having 2 dozen this time is an over correction. The thinning of the herd cannot come fast enough.

Yup. I don't have a favorite and not really going to do much research until it thins out.

I am with you. I will say I have done some research, but I know if I get too attached to someone, that is when they will drop out.

In some ways I'm glad, because I want folks like Andrew Yang to stay in as long as possible to raise the UBI concept up in the minds of more people. But overall yeah, its just too much and hopefully it thins out after these next debates as most of the candidates realize that two shots on national TV got them nowhere and its time to stop spending.

When there's no presumptive nominee like Hillary I think we're going to see this kind of chaos regardless of which party it is in the future. Both ways of swinging the pendulum have their flaws; when there's an 'obvious choice' they'd better be a good one, and when there isn't one -- who knows what the heck happens.

I am listening to the "Pod Saves America" interviews of the Democratic candidates. I am just listening the ones that have any kind of shot, and Andrew Yang (I was just interested in him). Of the ones I have heard, the main thing I have gotten is how in the heck hasn't Cory Booker fared better? He was the head and shoulders the most inspiring interview of the group. Harris and Warren were good. Beto couldn't even keep my interest.

I could be wrong about this, but I have a feeling that a LOT of Democratic voters care much more about beating Trump this time around than about which candidate gets the nomination.

So I think that you will have a lot of undecideds and soft support for candidates until things really start rolling. Then, after Iowa and NH and SC define the frontrunner, she/he will end up getting all of that support flow to her really quickly as the voters try to end the process to focus on the general.

The Bernie Bros. are, of course, the complication to my plan because I don't see them doing anything but continuing to scorch earth on Bernie's behalf up through the general election. But, other than them, I think that things end up quickly coalescing behind a front-runner after the voting starts.

(I'm so bad at predicting this stuff, though, that we'll probably end up with a legitimately contested convention this year.)

Speaking only for myself, because I suspect I think about the minutiae of elections much more than your average voter (Republican OR Democratic), but I think the odds are staggeringly against anybody in the Democratic field being able to enact policy for at least two years.

Structurally, the playing field is tilted against them. We're unlikely to witness a Presidential year where Republican turnout is as depressed as it was in 2018. I expect a Republican House to be one outcome of the '20 elections no matter how favorably Democrats are viewed by the electorate.

(Even if they hold the House, they're going to be dancing on the knife's edge in that chamber until they can recapture enough state houses to have an effect on redistricting, but that's another matter.)

Republicans are on defense in the Senate this cycle, but they're fighting on favorable ground. It isn't like '18 where Democrats had to play defense all over the map with a bunch of those seats in Trump Country.

To control the Senate, they realistically probably need to flip at least four seats. Doug Jones is probably not getting re-elected as a Democrat in Alabama unless he runs against Roy Moore again, and maybe not even then. So that means running the table on their other seats and flipping four Republican seats to compensate for the loss of Alabama. I see Maine and Kansas as possibilities, with Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina as dark horses. If everything breaks right, they COULD take those five seats, but I think 2-3 of the 5 is a more realistic outcome.

That leaves them with a probable caucus of 48-49 and McTurtle dusting off "our biggest responsibility is to make sure ___ is a one-term president" from his Obstruction Greatest Hits playbook.

So, okay; a Democrat wins the White House, but barring an incredibly unlikely confluence of events in 2020, it doesn't matter what their policy goals are. Even though the Senate map looks rosier in 2022, the reality is that the Democratic coalition is reactive, not proactive. They're likelier than not to pat themselves on the back after beating Trump, say "yay us, democracy saved," and then go back to sleep until the next Presidential election. They're kinda like the "this is fine" dog that way. They don't show up regularly unless Crisis Mode is engaged. So even though 2022 looks like a better opportunity for Democrats to recapture the Senate, I'm not particularly optimistic.

So, no, I don't want Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. I'm, honestly, done with their generation. I want a younger generation of leaders to put the old shits out to pasture. But I'm not going to die on any particular policy hill aside from "don't be Trump" from the group, either. Even if I'm really really sold on Buttigieg, or Booker, or Harris, or whomever, their policy goals are, speaking practically, going to remain aspirational.

It's not so much 'caring more about beating Trump than about which candidate gets the nomination' as recognizing that the political realities of the moment are such that any Democrat who wins is vanishingly unlikely to accomplish much in the way of governance beyond keeping the lights on, so why get hung up on 'who' that Democrat is?

Booker is incredibly charismatic and inspiring. I am also surprised he hasn't gotten a bigger boost. Yes, he is more moderate and cozier with Wall Street than the leftier groups, but so is Harris and Biden.

I think I've said it before but Booker appeals to me on an emotional level simply because he seems like practically the candidate who is most likely to demonstrate the proper amount of anger or bewilderment with the modern political circus.

His Wall Street ties hurt him with the extreme progressive wing, I think there is a segment of Democratic voters who were convinced HRC would be the first female President & will resist supporting any guy as long as Warren/Harris are viable candidates, but mainly I think it's because people say they care but most don't actually look into or listen to the candidates. Idk how exactly tonight goes and if Klobuchar/Buttigieg can make an impression, but I figure night 2 will just be Booker, Harris & maybe Castro eviscerating Biden & his soft lead.

It'll be interesting to see if Sanders and Warren at least try to outline some differences between them on night 1, and on night 2 if those 3 go after each other at all or just concentrate on destroying Biden.

Though Biden's drop in the polls due to the first debate has completely disappeared. He's back where he was. Maybe his lead isn't all that soft?

I think the field will have to drop to 5 or 6 for Biden to really be hit hard enough to drop from the 30%+ area.

What does Booker offer that you can't find in Biden, Harris or Warren? He hasn't done a good job of saying here's how I'm unique. He seems like someone that would really benefit from the exposure of a VP job.

Booker isn't competing against Warren. I would say he offers far more of a vision than Biden or Harris. His baby bonds idea was a fantastic and has been on the forefront of criminal justice reform in the Senate.

I more am curious to ask what does Harris offer that Booker doesn't?